GENIUS FORUMS

He weaved his opinions in poetic bile and tried to cover them up with a blanket of philosophy, but the blanket fools no one.

Discuss the topic with vigor, with chaos in your soul, so that you may give birth to dancing stars!

For god's sake at least lay down Nietzsche's main ideas and what you think of them so we can talk.

Boyan wrote:For god's sake at least lay down Nietzsche's main ideas and what you think of them so we can talk.

he didn't have ideas, he just had opinions tightly surrounded by a plethora of emotion that he expressed poetically in little essays and books.

I think the poets can definitely claim Nietzsche as their own, since he never had a philosophical thought.

Death of god, master-slave morality, Overman, ressentiment, will to power, Apollonian and Dionysian...

Ideas, opinions, call them as you wish.

I have an idea that there are two kinds of moral values. Those of the master and of the slave...

I am of the opinion that there are two kinds of moral values...

Boyan wrote:Death of god, master-slave morality, Overman, ressentiment, will to power, Apollonian and Dionysian...

Yep, he was good with his metaphors.

Ideas, opinions, call them as you wish.

Ok.

average wrote:

Boyan wrote:Death of god, master-slave morality, Overman, ressentiment, will to power, Apollonian and Dionysian...

Yep, he was good with his metaphors.

Ideas, opinions, call them as you wish.

Ok.

You have trouble understanding metaphors? Then read 'Genealogy of morals' for example. You could find some metaphors there too, but the biggest part of the work is written in direct language.

Finish reading Hume until you understand him. Then read Kant, all the way until you understand him. Finally, read Schopenhauer, until you understand his views. Only then might you know enough about what a philosopher is to be able to understand the next link in this chain of philosophers: Nietzsche.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Finish reading Hume until you understand him. Then read Kant, all the way until you understand him. Finally, read Schopenhauer, until you understand his views. Only then might you know enough about what a philosopher is to be able to understand the next link in this chain of philosophers: Nietzsche.

The next link in the chain of philosophers is a poet, I'm glad you agree.

I prefer Poe over Nietzsche though, but thats just me.

You are being immature again. I thought I'd give you harsh recommendation, in hopes that it might spark some genuine fire, but it's become abundantly clear you have no real interest in philosophy. You like playing these single off-key notes too much. It thrills your ego too much to believe falsehoods to ever give this up.

Average, I think you are in the wrong forum. Maybe you could take up an interest, like watching old episodes of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and then find a discussion forum devoted to that. You do not have the attention span for philosophy.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: You do not have the attention span for philosophy. You do not have the attention span for philosophy. You do not have the attention span for philosophy. You do not have the attention span for philosophy. You do not have the attention span for philosophy. You do not have the attention span for philosophy.

There is no such thing as philosophy.

If that is the case, then Nietzsche could not have been a philosopher at all. Nor could any of the other people in that list.

Hume was not a philosopher, nor was Kant, nor was Schopenhauer. Nor was, in fact, Plato, or Socrates, or Thales, or any of those others.

And when someone goes to a university and gets a "Doctorate of Philosophy" (PhD), it is a misnomer, since philosophy does not exist.

God, you are a complete fucking moron. There is, in fact, something that distinguishes Nietzsche and the rest of these men from other people. Until you figure out what it is, you are in the wrong forum.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If that is the case, then Nietzsche could not have been a philosopher at all. Nor could any of the other people in that list.

Hume was not a philosopher, nor was Kant, nor was Schopenhauer. Nor was, in fact, Plato, or Socrates, or Thales, or any of those others.

Right.

And when someone goes to a university and gets a "Doctorate of Philosophy" (PhD), it is a misnomer, since philosophy does not exist.

Yep - you can get PhD's in math, art, music and pretty much any other subject. The term itself has barely any relevance to the ghost that is philosophy.

God, you are a complete fucking moron. There is, in fact, something that distinguishes Nietzsche and the rest of these men from other people. Until you figure out what it is, you are in the wrong forum.

He was a poet, they were not.
I know the difference. ;]

So what does the word "philosophy" mean, if philosophy doesn't exist? You can't say it doesn't exist if it's not a meaningful term -- otherwise, you might as well be a 16-year old atheist claiming that he's proven that God doesn't exist, without being able to define God. For that claim to meaningful, God must mean something.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:So what does the word "philosophy" mean, if philosophy doesn't exist? You can't say it doesn't exist if it's not a meaningful term -- otherwise, you might as well be a 16-year old atheist claiming that he's proven that God doesn't exist, without being able to define God. For that claim to meaningful, God must mean something.

Philosophy means a school of thought involved with arbitrary topics and uses no system at all to reach no conclusions in particular.

Some people believe in it, but there really is no such thing.

So there's no such thing as non-systemic thought that arrives at no conclusions?

I beg to differ! I use that all the time!

Sometimes, I also use systematic thought that arrives at conclusions. What is that called?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Sometimes, I also use systematic thought that arrives at conclusions. What is that called?

A mental bias.

So thinking is split between inconclusive, non-systematic thought, and conclusive, systematic thought. Non-systematic thought is "philosophy", and systematic thought is "bias".

You claim that non-systematic thought (philosophy) does not exist. So that leaves only systematic thought: bias.

So all thinking is bias? That sounds depressing. Are you sure that's not you just projecting your own limitations, or does this follow from some necessity?

Nietzsche had a lot of flaws, but his understanding of the Infinite was pretty deep and most of writings were perfectly consistent with it. If you don't have this understanding yourself, then yes, I can well imagine that Nietzsche's ideas would appear to be all over the place. But for those who do have this understanding, Nietzsche's thinking was consistently clear and deep - particularly during the early to mid-stages of his writing career.

-

average,

Trevor: Sometimes, I also use systematic thought that arrives at conclusions. What is that called?

A: A mental bias.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias towards reason and truth.

-

David Quinn wrote:average,

Trevor: Sometimes, I also use systematic thought that arrives at conclusions. What is that called?

A: A mental bias.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias towards reason and truth.

-

Except for the fact that we can pick and choose what is 'reasonable' and what is 'truth' and come up with all sorts of crazy world-views.

The culprit in this instance is unchallenged attachments. People with different attachments will invariably use reason to arrive at different conclusions. It isn't reason which is at fault here, but people's unwillingness to challenge their most cherished views and values.

Highly logical people who no longer have any attachments will always arrive at the same truths, no matter what society or era they belong to.

-

Average, I see you conveniently avoided answering to my post where I said that you can find non metaphorically presented ideas in Genealogy of morals.